BI’s Article search uses Boolean search capabilities. If you are not familiar with these principles, here are some quick tips.
To search specifically for more than one word, put the search term in quotation marks. For example, “workers compensation”. This will limit your search to that combination of words.
To search for a combination of terms, use quotations and the & symbol. For example, “hurricane” & “loss”.
The federal district court in Chicago on Wednesday denied Arthur J. Gallagher’s motion for a temporary restraining order against Alliant Insurance Services Inc. in connection with the poaching lawsuit Gallagher filed over the departure of eight of its Chicago employees.
The lawsuit filed in Arthur J. Gallagher & Co. v. Alliant Insurance Services Inc. on July 28 said that on July 11, three Gallagher employees resigned and were followed by five additional Gallagher employees over ensuing days. It charges that Alliant began immediately soliciting the departing employee’s clients.
Gallagher filed an emergency two-page motion for a temporary restraining order and preliminary injunction the same day it filed its lawsuit, which stated it “has suffered and will suffer irreparable harm if Alliant is not enjoined.”
A 36-page opposition to Gallagher’s motion, which was filed with the court Aug. 3, states that the employees who left, who were all women, did so because they “became so fed up with Gallagher’s sexist and unfair treatment.”
The motion says to obtain a TRO, Gallagher must show a likelihood of success on the merits, but its brief “is barren of any actual evidence’” that the departing employees “engaged in misconduct and that Alliant is responsible for it.”
It says also that “Gallagher’s requested relief is inappropriately overbroad.”
Gallagher responded on Aug. 5 by stating Alliant’s charges of sexism and discrimination are false and “completely irrelevant,” and that it has demonstrated “a strong likelihood of success on the merits.”
In her brief docket entry, Judge Martha M. Pacold said she was denying Gallagher’s motion for a TRO “for the reasons stated on the record,” and directed the parties to submit a joint status report on expedited discovery by Friday.